1

Impact of CODE Training (ADEI) 

Marissa Dordick, Miko Delacruz, Michael Parker, Trevor Hanson, Abraham Cervantes,

& Chavonis Black 

Department of Higher Education and Student Affairs, Northern Illinois University 

HESA 573: Application of Assessment Methods in Higher Education 

Dr. Jacqueline Mac 

December 6, 2020 
IMPACT OF CODE TRAINING (ADEI) 2

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine what, if any, long term impacts CODE

training at Northern Illinois University has on those who participate. We were interested in if

those involved continued to experience change within themselves and how they interact

differently with others now than before CODE training. Using the Multicultural Intervention

Matrix as the conceptual framework, we used a qualitative approach by distributing surveys to

students, faculty, and staff who had engaged in CODE training. We used a combination of open-

ended and closed-ended questions to gather data about the ways in which participants saw

improvement on how they view themselves in relation to others. Our findings suggest that

students of color learned more about themselves through CODE, whereas white students learned

more about others and faculty/staff showed little to no change after CODE. A key finding of this

study was that white students reported being more reactive by supporting the creation of

inclusive spaces, but were not as willing to start dialogue regarding issues of oppression;

therefore, revealing that CODE training is a call to action.

IMPACT OF CODE TRAINING (ADEI) 3

Impact of CODE Training (ADEI)

As institutions and organizations work towards improving their efficiency, impact on

students, and learning in all areas and departments, there must be a continuous rotation that

includes strong and effective practices of diversity, equity and inclusion that measures and assess

the culture of the institution. As institutions assess their department or organization, data

findings, recommendations and follow-ups help in strengthening practices. Cultural competence

is often defined as being able to communicate and cooperate with individuals who hold different

beliefs that do not match one’s own (DeAngelis, 2015). As cultural competence is a skillset that

some may not actively think about, this topic is important to assess. Likewise, it’s important to

assess the success of an internal diversity and inclusion trainings to ensure a university is

achieving the values of diversity and social justice they claim to support.

The ADEI (Academic Diversity Equity and Inclusion) office at Northern Illinois

University works to lead the charge for a community that promotes equity and the elimination of

discriminatory and exclusionary systems. The main initiative of the department is their CODE

(Conversations on Diversity and Equity) Workshops, which are designed to educate students,

faculty and staff about the cultural differences that shape our world. Through Conversations on

Diversity and Equity (CODE) workshops, campus members can create a respectful and safe

place for all by exposing students to the ways in which they differ. The purpose of this project is

to assess long-term benefits of CODE training. The findings of this assessment should be

supported and adopted to address areas of improvement.

The following questions guided our project: (1) What impact does CODE trainings have

long-term? (2) How does racial demographics impact change the learning of students, faculty

and staff in topics related to diversity, equity, and inclusion? (3) Is the Office of Academic
IMPACT OF CODE TRAINING (ADEI) 4

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion at Northern Illinois University, achieving the intended outcomes

of their Code Training? Specifically, we used the Multicultural Intervention Matrix (MCIM) as a

foundational understanding for this study, this assessment surveys the impact of CODE training

which will provide information that can serve as a possible foundation for future CODE

assessments. In our assessment, we analyzed the responses of students, faculty, and staff who

participated in a CODE workshop. Our research group carried out the assessment using a survey

which focused on analyzing the effectiveness of CODE workshops for students, faculty, and

staff. Our survey was used to expand upon the data collected from participants in CODE

workshops from the prior year. Our goal to measure impact was joined by figuring out what

progress has been made and what gaps needed to be filled in order to improve the effectiveness

of the training.

Research on Diversity Training

The ability to communicate and cooperate with different individuals in areas shared by

many is an important aspect of large spaces such as an entire university where multiple groups

and experiences regulate campus atmospheres. Through Conversations on Diversity and Equity

(CODE) workshops, campus members can create a respectful and safe place for all by exposing

students to the ways in which they differ. The aim of the assessment is to deviate from how

diversity and equity trainings are evaluated now. With the use of the Multicultural Intervention

Matrix (MCIM) as a foundational understanding for this study, this assessment surveys the

impact of CODE training which will provide information that can serve as a possible foundation

for future CODE assessments. To form a scholarly foundation for this project, we reviewed

literature on what is considered diversity and inclusion training, existing gaps in research on such

trainings, and the ways current diversity trainings are evaluated and assessed.
IMPACT OF CODE TRAINING (ADEI) 5

What is Diversity and Inclusion Training

In the past decade, diversity has been the hot topic in every organization, top Forbes

companies and universities. These organizations have implemented some variety of training

programs or modules “focused on reaping the benefits and avoiding the pitfalls associated with

diversity” (Ferdman & Brody, 1996). There are many ways to elicit diversity training ranging

from hour long briefings to institution wide change initiatives and express a common goal

(Ferdman & Brody, 1996). This section discusses the ways in which diversity training and

intercultural training differ and the significance of each as they pertain to higher education.

It is important to highlight the difference between diversity training and intercultural

training because they have similar elements but are not the same thing. Ferdman & Brody (1996)

cited Pruegger and Rogers by defining and describing intercultural training as the concern with

being aware of communication skills and behaviors towards culturally diverse people (Ferdman

& Brody, 1996). Intercultural training bears the elements of importance towards people’s

individuality and identity, but only within the sense of outward processes. Yet, diversity training

focuses on the impact of various people interacting in the institution or organization relating to

issues such as working with or in a heterogeneous workplace (Ferdman & Brody, 1996) and can

usually focus on race, gender, gender identity, ethnicity and specific group-based communities

that “encompasses individual differences, lifestyles, and job functions” (p. 284). Thus, Diversity

training and intercultural training both emphasize the importance of culture and individuality but

in different ways.

There are many reasons why institutions and organizations participate in diversity

training. One of them is to bring inclusion and diversity into the modern workplace and create a

valuable opportunity for workplace inclusion. These trainings can help faculty and staff learn on
IMPACT OF CODE TRAINING (ADEI) 6

how to promote diversity on campus by using experiences of real students to explore concepts

such as privilege, whiteness, power, and identity. Diversity and inclusion training programs can

be a great initiative for students, faculty and staff to learn and be more successful by gaining

appreciation of other cultures, ethnicities and races and more importantly identifying how they

can create a more inclusive campus climate and workplace.

The Direction of Diversity Training

As it stands, diversity training shows results, but not enough for lasting change.

Researchers recognize that current diversity training has flaws in practice and evaluation.

Bezrukova, Jehn, and Spell (2012) examined 178 articles that investigated various aspects such

as themes of diversity training programs on both college campuses and in the workplace

(Bezrukova et al., 2012). In the first section, characteristics of the research, the researchers

expressed the flaws found in prior studies regarding diversity training effectiveness. Next, the

researchers observed the context of the training such as, how many and how long the activities

were, attendance requirements, and where the events were completed had an impact on the

perceived effectiveness of the training. The researchers then discussed how each of the

aforementioned topics impacted the success of the training (Bezrukova et al., 2012). The third

category observed was the design of the training which analyzed the impact of having a group-

specific versus an inclusive training focus. A few final themes of this study include

characteristics of the trainee’s impact on training outcomes as well as the perceived outcomes of

the trainees (Bezrukova et al., 2012). This study shows there is much more research that needs to

be conducted related to diversity training and how they impact trainees; likewise, the article

provides the reader a better understanding of the shortcomings of diversity training research but

also a great deal of optimism in knowing there is more attention being placed on the subject.
IMPACT OF CODE TRAINING (ADEI) 7

While conversations about diversity have increased dramatically, an interest in research

regarding the matter has not. In Race, Ethnicity, Recreation and Leisure: An Assessment of

Research, Edwin Gomez suggests direction for future research by identifying five gaps within

assessment related to race/ethnicity and leisure studies. One gap mentioned is the lack of

replication studies, which could be helpful in linking qualitative and quantitative data. Also

noted is the topic of race could benefit from the expansion of research in regions of the US where

there has been historically limited research (Gomez, 2012). This shows researchers have not

taken the time to engage in a more in-depth examination of how language and values are

determinants for leisure behavior. As a result, race related research could use a more critical

examination of white hegemony and racial discourse as it relates to the creation and leisure

context (Gomez, 2012)

The way in which diversity and inclusion trainings have been evaluated has not been

done in a way that provides indication of actual impact. Though quantitative data has always

been a favorite, the matter of diversity and inclusion trainings like CODE is a human affair, and

human affairs cannot be accurately measured using numbers. The literature for these trainings

have been evident in that evaluations are focused on numbers or may not be properly monitored.

In hopes of assisting ADEI, the literature presented will be an asset towards assessing NIU’s

CODE workshops for campus participants.

Examination of Diversity Training Evaluation Practices

Evaluating a program effectively allows for insight on improvements to be known and to

measure the goals that were laid out for the program. In many studies on the effectiveness of

diversity trainings (Cordes, 2009; Leiderman, & George, 2005; Ngo, Myers, Chang, Orville, &

Illes, 2012), practitioners referenced the number of attendees of the training but did not have
IMPACT OF CODE TRAINING (ADEI) 8

much proof of goals being met by attendees. Attendance does not automatically equate to

success or learning. Evaluating a diversity training may be a difficult task, but it is one that is

paramount to ensure a successful training.

In Molly Illes (2017) conducted a dissertation study critically examining current

evaluation practices of diversity certificate training programs in higher education and found

multiple gaps in evaluating the effectiveness of these trainings. The study found that most of

these trainings did not use any theories or frameworks in the design process of the training,

which makes it difficult to create assessment content. Also, many practitioners encountered the

varying level of knowledge, comfort, and overall comfortability of the participants. Having so

many attendees at different levels makes it difficult for the practitioners to meet everyone where

they are at and to educate everyone appropriately. Eight of the nine trainings in Illes’ study

(2017) used exit surveys, some at the end of each session and some at the end of the entire

program. Most practitioners noted that they recognized exit surveys as limited data and that

large-scale changes could not be made. Illes’ surmises that the practitioners’ lack of evaluation

skills as the largest barrier in creating effective evaluations, but also notes that this is not a valid

excuse for proper evaluations to be missed. 

Conceptual Framework

We employed the Multicultural Intervention Matrix (MCIM) as the conceptual

framework for this project The MCIM is a 2 x 3 model developed by Raechele L. Pope (1995)

that can provide structure and guide multicultural interventions (Figure 1). The MCIM is

organized into either target of change or type of change. The targets of change can occur at three

different levels: individual, group, and institutional. Change efforts can also fall into two types:

first-order change and second order change. Pope (1995) cited Watzlawick in their article
IMPACT OF CODE TRAINING (ADEI) 9

describing and differentiating the two different levels of interventions by explaining that first-

order change is defined as a change in the system but not within the structure; however, second

order change is defined as fundamental alterations to the structure. It is at each intersection of the

matrix that indicates the outcome of the type of change based on the target through multicultural

intervention options. The intersections with the targets of change perpendicular to the first order

of change, in respective order of individual, group, and institution, are awareness; membership;

and programmatic. As for the second order of change, they are paradigmatic shift,

restructuring and systemic, also in respective order. 

Figure 1

Multicultural Intervention Matrix(MCIM) Model

For this project, we focused specifically on awareness, which is first-order change at the

individual level, and paradigmatic shift, which is second order of change at the individual level.

CODE workshops are individual focused intervention programs; therefore, doing both orders of

changes for the individual type of change allowed us to measure the impact for diversity training.
IMPACT OF CODE TRAINING (ADEI) 10

By analyzing the answers of both the open and close ended questions, therein lies the possibility

to indicate whether the training’s impact brought about not only awareness but even a

paradigmatic shift in our respondents.

Methods and Data Sources

For this assessment, we created a new survey to measure the long-term impact of CODE

training. Our participant database was compiled based on past participants of CODE training and

steps were taken to showcase ethical practices and reliability for this study. When it comes to our

approach to this project as a team, it is imperative to clarify that we all view the world and

knowledge differently. Even though we have similar thoughts, how we came to those

conclusions and utilize them to further our research may vary. As each of us differ in expertise

we are able to observe this study from different viewpoints such as some of us having experience

with CODE and others being introduced to it. As we not only come from different experiences

with CODE, coming from different identity groups as our assessment team is made up of

individuals holding various identities, there is also the benefit of being able to analyze CODE

training as a competence course in opening up minds to experiences like ours and how well that

translates cross culturally. 

Survey Instrument

The survey was made up of 31 questions, including 25 questions focused on learning

outcomes and two open ended questions to determine specificity of lasting impact (Appendix A).

The questions were developed using a model developed by Diane Goodman (2020) that

explained cultural competence through the categories of self-awareness, understanding and

valuing others, knowledge of societal inequities, skills to interact effectively with a diversity of

people in different contexts, and skills to foster transformation towards equity and inclusion.
IMPACT OF CODE TRAINING (ADEI) 11

Goodman (2020) then described each category in further detail, and it is in those details that our

questions were developed into 25 questions in our survey. 

Our survey asked participants to rate their awareness and knowledge of multiple topics

related to oppression, inequalities, and racism and their ability (confidence) to use their

knowledge from CODE actively to do this things like disrupt racism and continuing to learn

about injustices. The questions also asked participants to compare their current abilities

compared to before they participated in CODE. The addition of two open ended questions were

developed to add some clarity to our close ended question survey data. Participants were asked to

describe an action that they are taking to continue their education on the topic and what is one

thing that still sticks with them from CODE. Additionally, there were four demographic

questions in order to categorize the data as well. The demographic questions asked participants

how they identify in a few different ways, including what ethnicity they identified with, whether

they are faculty/staff/ or student, and what department or year they belong to depending on the

previous question. 

Data Collection 

         We created and administered our survey using Qualtrics. The survey was distributed

using a list of past participants of CODE training from a year prior that we obtained through the

permission of ADEI as well as the NIU Office of Registration and Records. Using the contact

details obtained from this list, the survey was distributed through email and respondents were

given two weeks to fill the survey. Participants were encouraged to fill out our survey with the

incentive of entering a raffle to win one of five $10 dollar Starbucks gift cards, which were

provided by ADEI.
IMPACT OF CODE TRAINING (ADEI) 12

Respondent Profile

After two weeks, we received a total of 91 recorded responses. Respondents were

categorized based on Faculty/Staff or Student, then by year if they identified as a student, by

racial background, and finally by both their status as a faculty/staff or as a student along with

their racial identity. About one-quarter of the respondents, 24.21%, identified as Faculty/Staff

and 75.79% identified as students. Of the 75.79% who identified as students, 2.9% identified as

freshmen, 75.36% as sophomores, 2.9% as juniors, 13.04% as seniors, and 5.8% as graduate

students. In terms of ethnic background for both faculty/staff and student respondents, there were

51.65% white respondents, 9.89% Black or African American respondents, 19.78% Latinx

respondents, 12.09% Asian respondents, 1.1%, other, and 5.49% that preferred not to respond.

Broken down between Faculty/staff and students, as well as the racial demographic the data

shows 75% of faculty/staff respondents identify as white, 10% as Black or African American,

5% as Latinx, 5% as Asian, and 5% preferred not to respond. As for students with racial identity

considered, 51.65% of student respondents identified as white, 9.89% as Black or African

American, 19.78% as Latinx, 12.09% as Asian, 1.1% as other, and 5.49% preferred not to

respond.

Data Analysis

In order to analyze the data, we reviewed the responses from the survey questions. We

were able to establish various groupings of the responses from the results of the demographic

questions of the survey as means to compare the findings. The demographic questions were used

to create groupings to measure possible differences of impact from CODE to different

demographic groups (i.e., Black faculty or white students). The conceptual framework was

applied to the overall themes of the data to determine whether CODE training reached the
IMPACT OF CODE TRAINING (ADEI) 13

desired outcomes specified by the individual types of changes of “Awareness” and

“Paradigmatic Shift” in the MCIM. Further analysis of both demographic data and conceptual

framework could provide insight on possible improvements for the future of CODE training.

Assessment Team Positionality

When it comes to our approach to this project as a team, it is imperative to clarify that we

all view the world and knowledge differently. Even though we have similar thoughts, how we

came to those conclusions and utilize them to further our research may vary. As each of us differ

in expertise we are able to observe this study from different viewpoints such as some of us

having experience with CODE and others being introduced to it. As we not only come from

different experiences with CODE, coming from different identity groups as our assessment team

is made up of individuals holding various identities, there is also the benefit of being able to

analyze CODE training as a competence course in opening up minds to experiences like ours and

how well that translates cross culturally. 

Ethics and Reliability

Though this assessment may not be put in front of the Institutional Review Board, it still

intends to be conducted whilst practicing the basic ethical principles of respect for persons,

beneficence, and justice. We utilized an informed consent document in which we introduce our

project informing participants of what the purpose of our project is as well as how we use this

data. We emphasized that their names will not be recorded, disclosed, or linked to their data. The

introductory slide serves as an Informed Consent Document (ICD) (See Figure C) as it utilizes

verbal consent by stating that the action of continuing to the next page gives verbal consent that

you agree to participate in our survey and to accept the minimal risk, in order to do our best to

keep the data and our participants’ identities as confidential as possible.

IMPACT OF CODE TRAINING (ADEI) 14

Gift Card raffles served as our incentive and provided participants an opportunity to have

their email submitted into a raffle to win one of three Starbucks gift cards provided by the NIU

Academic Diversity Equity and Inclusion office. Participants interested in entering would be

linked to an external survey to submit their information. As our assessment accounted for

demographics by asking participants to provide us their racial identities, we designed our survey

to utilize the demographic data while keeping participants’ identities confidential. We only used

names and emails to disperse gift cards to individuals who chose to have this information

accessed.

To establish credibility in the data, Carter et al. (2014) acknowledged the use of

triangulation in qualitative research. Denzin and Patton found in 1978 that there are four types of

triangulation: Methodological Triangulation, Analyst Triangulation, Theory Triangulation, and

Data Source Triangulation. Research professionals have found triangulation to be beneficial in

“increasing confidence in research data, creating innovative ways of understanding a

phenomenon, revealing unique findings, challenging or integrating theories, and providing a

clearer understanding of the problem” (Thurmond, 2001). Our assessment utilized analyst and

data source triangulation.

Analyst or Investigator triangulation refers to multiple researchers analyzing the data

from a study (Carter et al., 2014). Given the large number of members who participated in this

research assessment, reliability is established through the abundance of perspectives and

interpretations regarding the results found from the study. Likewise, analyst triangulation

provides researchers a better opportunity to discover blind spots in the analysis process.

Investigator triangulation also provides a sense of internal validity by keeping group members

honest and ethical. The second triangulation method, Data source triangulation was represented
IMPACT OF CODE TRAINING (ADEI) 15

by data based on the experiences of several different groups was considered (Carter et al., 2014).

The groups in this study are students, faculty, staff, and past participants, which allows the

researchers to receive CODE training experiences from different perspectives for valid

expression of data. These data sources allowed for a great deal of researcher interpretation and

more in-depth findings.

The provided survey questions aimed to gather ample information to help discover the

effectiveness of the training. While doing so, this assessment considered the best ways to keep

the assessment ethical. With that in mind, triangulation and Consent information documents will

be used when discussing the ways in which this assessment is ethical and reliable. 

Findings

Below we present our findings. First, we share themes from the open-ended questions.

Then, we share findings according student and faculty/staff status. We decided to divide the

respondents according to their roles with the university as we believed that students and

faculty/staff operate within connected but different types of environments at NIU. Within these

two groups, we further discuss findings based on participants’ reported ethnicity. We decided to

analyze these groups specifically to focus our data for further analysis in future assessment.

Thematic Findings of Student Learning and Actions Taken

We begin our discussion of student findings by describing the themes that emerged from

the two open-ended questions. First, we found six themes regarding what student participants

learned from a CODE workshop that still stuck with them at the time students responded to the

survey. These themes are: (1) active listening and communication skills; (2) honoring different

perspectives and experiences; (3) knowledge about race and of cultural identities; (4) recognizing
IMPACT OF CODE TRAINING (ADEI) 16

bias; (5) understanding systemic racism; and (6) using one’s own voice to combat inequities.

These themes are further supported by sub-themes as depicted in Appendix B.

We also found that responses to the open-ended question inquiring about actions they

have taken to continue their self-development towards diversity, equity, and inclusion fell into

three thematic categories. First, student participants continued self-reflection through actions

such as analyzing how their own actions impacted others and reflecting on past experiences.

Second, student participants engaged in self-education by seeking and consuming information

from diverse sources and participating in additional trainings offered by ADEI and other

organizations. Finally, student participants described personal change actions, such as donating

to social justice causes and educating others. Appendix C details these themes and sub-themes.

Student Findings By Racial and Ethnic Group

Of the 91 respondents, 71 were students. The racial makeup of this group included 32

Whitewhite students, seven Black students, 17 Latinx students, 10 Asian students, one selected

“other”, and four preferred to not respond. To make meaning of the data, the responses of

Whitewhite students were separated from the responses of non-White studentsstudents of color

to find any commonalities or differences. By grouping the respondents based on races, the effect

of CODE training on different types of students could be analyzed. 

The biggest difference between responses of Whitewhite and non-White studentsstudents

of color is that non-White studentsstudents of color responded that their knowledge and

confidence levels remained unchanged after CODE compared to Whitewhite students. For

example, the question of, “compared to before you participated in CODE workshops, how would
IMPACT OF CODE TRAINING (ADEI) 17

you rate your knowledge of how different forms of oppression operate at the interpersonal

level” , 39.5% of students of color reported that their knowledge stayed the same while 46.9% of

white students reported somewhat better knowledge. of how oppression operates at the

interpersonal level. This brings up questions of what type of students are the intended audience

for CODE trainings and is there a benefit for non-White students to attend CODE? In taking a

look at the open-ended answers by student respondents we are able to gain some specificity in

our context with these responses (See Table 1 and 2), but with the rest of our survey and data, we

feel that it is not enough for those questions to be fully answered yet. However, we can make the

conclusion that White students saw higher long-term benefits from CODE.This offers a question

about which students are the intended audience for CODE trainings and to what extent do

students of color learnr and/or benefit from attending CODE trainings.

Another finding referring to student respondents, showsWe also found that

Whitewhite students reported gaining somewhat more awareness about themselves and much

more oawareness n about other people (i.e.i.e., how others may perceive them and how others

may identify).non-White students For example, 41.9% of white students, for the questions of

“Compared to before you participated in CODE workshops , how aware are you now of the

impact of your behavior/others’ social identities/differences between how others do and think

compared to your own,” reported more significant interest or growth by responding that they

were much more aware of the topics listed in the questions after code training. This may suggest

two things. First, white students had some level of awareness of their own identities prior to

participating in CODE, and, second, participating in CODE helped white students develop more

awareness about others and how they related to others. At the same time, most students of color
IMPACT OF CODE TRAINING (ADEI) 18

reported about the same levels of awareness across topics, such as their own social identities,

how they are perceived by others, and the impact of their behavior. These two findings suggest

that there may be a difference in how CODE trainings impacted levels of awareness for white

students compared to students of color.

Lastly, our data shows that Whitewhite students felt much more confident being reactive

when given the opportunity to engage in conversation about diversity topics or make adaptations

to their environment to be more racially accommodating rather than being proactive in these

same scenarios. Some questions in our survey that measured respondent confidence in acting

reactively include, “respond to bias comments” and “address inequitable dynamics showing up

in groups I am a part of.” Examples that measure respondents' confidence to be proactive

include, “Start a dialogue with others about social diversity, oppression, and diversity” and

“integrate cultural differences in my day to day life.” For example, The question of , “Compared

to before you participated in CODE workshops, How would you rate your ability to address

inequitable dynamics showing up in groups of I am apart of”, 48.4% of white student

respondents replied, “somewhat better”. And they continued to answer, “somewhat better”

consistently amongst the rest of the questions within the same category. But for the question of,

“Compared to before you participated in CODE workshops, How would you rate your ability to

create a welcoming environment for people different than me,” 58.1% of white students

answered, “much better.” While more white students answered “much better” for this question,

the answers they gave for the rest of the questions in this category fluctuated in consistence more

than the previous categorical question. This trend could point towards CODE acting as a starting

point for Whitewhite students to begin their journey in cultural competence, as being proactive

proves to be harder than being reactive. Ultimately, the goal is for participants to feel confident
IMPACT OF CODE TRAINING (ADEI) 19

enough to be proactive, because proactivity limits the amountnumber of times one can be

reactive, but it is better than not reacting at all.

Thematic Findings of Faculty and Staff Learning and Actions Taken

The themes found within the faculty and staff responses for two open ended questions

were similar to the students’ responses (Appendix D). Therefore, we decided to utilize the same

language in categorizing the faculty and staff responses. While these six themes remained the

same for what faculty and staff participants learned, the sub-themes were different from the

students’ sub-themes. In general, faculty and staff respondents gave similar responses that

students gave when asked about what they learned that sticked with them, but a couple of

differing sub themes that they had were “knowledge/understanding of one’s own identity,” and

“a call to action.” It is in these differing sub themes as well as the contrast between the sub

themes that are present and missing in comparison to the students will reflect not only the

discrepancy of the size of respondents between them but also show that CODE does have some

similar impacts across both students and faculty & staff.

As mentioned previously, the three overall themes for the second open-ended question

about the actions they have taken to continue their self-development towards diversity, equity,

and inclusion are the same (Appendix E). Language remained the same for these sub-themes, but

with the difference in number of respondents, some sub-themes are missing in comparison to

student respondents. The difference also lies in the addition of the sub-theme of “utilizing this

information in my own development, research, and work” which provides positive context to our

previous survey data.

Faculty and Staff Findings by Racial and Ethnic Group

IMPACT OF CODE TRAINING (ADEI) 20

We also analyzed faculty and staff respondents according to their responses about their

racial identity. In an analysis of faculty and staff through the lenses of their racial identity and

status within the university, we found that white faculty and staff showed slight growth across

the board in terms of their awareness, knowledge, and ability but the most prominent result

would have to be that their responses show a trend in proactivity when it comes to matters of

diversity, equity, and inclusion. Specifically, a large majority of white faculty and staff

answered, “somewhat more aware” for the statements, “learning to best address issues of equity

and inclusion” (45%), and “Start a dialogue with peers about social identities, diversity, and

oppression” (55%). This large majority result coupled with the open-ended answers we received

showcase that new knowledge or a realization of reality was gained and that there is newfound

confidence in their proactivity. 

Faculty and staff of color are somewhat similar but, also a bit opposite of this result.

Faculty and staff of color respondents were smaller in number and ranged from “about the same”

to “much better” for most of the close ended questions. For example, for the same statement of,

“Start a dialogue with peers about social identities, diversity, and oppression,” two out of five

respondents listed “much better” (40%). However, one respondent out of five that responded that

they feel “somewhat worse” when it came to that same statement (20%). That same answer of

“somewhat worse” is listed for three more statements within that same question category. It may

have been only one respondent, but it pays to at least give attention to the fact that someone felt

they became somewhat worse after the training because it could be something to note for future

assessments. 

This data provides a theme that shares the ways in which these training sessions help

initiate new perspectives for all races. While faculty/staff/students of color seem to have a slight
IMPACT OF CODE TRAINING (ADEI) 21

incline or plateau in our results, our findings display that the perspective of the learner might

need to be emphasized in consideration towards improvements and alterations to the curriculum.

Also, the theme of proactivity versus reactivity between white faculty/staff and white students

could provide direction and rationale for possible improvements and further assessment.

Implications

These results answer our question of impact, and it shows that there really isn’t much of

one. Based on the findings, CODE training seems to act serve as more of a beginning step

towards cultural competence. The results align with the previously mentioned framework

because results findings share indicate that awareness does indeed is increase within d a year

after respondents participated in CODE training. The responses for students indicate a level of

rising awareness amongst most of the student demographics and that there is a trend of

continuous learning, but whether a paradigmatic shift took place is yet to be determined.

However, if CODE training is intended to have a larger impact and ultimately reach a

paradigmatic shift in its participants, then there could be a need for further conversations about

intensifying and improving CODE trainings. This may also be the case if CODE trainings are

intended to not necessarily start the conversation but advance participants towards cultural

competency. 

ADEI, as it stands, impacts students and faculty/staff to an extent through their CODE

training, but in order to maximize impact our results show a need for more investment needed in

CODE training curriculum, methods, and time length. In looking at the data, gaps and

improvements can be spotted to redefine how diversity trainings are classified in relation to how

the MCIM sees them. While diversity trainings are currently viewed as a method to simply
IMPACT OF CODE TRAINING (ADEI) 22

improve awareness, there is an opportunity to redefine them as also a method that leads to action

toward fighting inequality and discrimination.

Currently, due to recent events and past circumstances, there’s been an emphasis on the

need for cultural competence. Therefore, a mandatory requirement has been put into place for

several students to attend CODE training. There is an opportunity for ADEI to take advantage of

this requirement. The intent for change is present by imposing a mandatory requirement on

trainings, but the expectation is a different story as students, faculty, and staff’s confidence in

their abilities and knowledge only seem to increase slightly. This is encouraging as progress

moves forward, but a larger jump in progress towards cultural competence could be made for the

community if participants are able to better utilize what they learn from CODE. 

Recommendations

The findings and implications of this study reveal areas in which improvements can be

made to better CODE training and further impact those who administer and partake in them. We

make three concrete recommendations. First, In order to maximize and improve from our

findings ourour team sees an opportunity to intensify current curriculum or add an additional

intensified curriculum. The forced move to virtual learning has shown us a scenario in which we

can teach from the comforts of our own home and allow for less of a worry to get everyone in the

same place. The results show that after an hour-long CODE workshop, that respondents see

slight positive growth within their awareness, ability, and knowledge. OOur findings also show

that CODE workshops provide a call to action that motivates further education, training, and

reflection. With those results and based on how effective online CODE facilitator training was in

delivering a large amount of content over a period of six weeks, there might be an opportunity to
IMPACT OF CODE TRAINING (ADEI) 23

intensify the current CODE workshops or offer a follow up training that could be more in-depth

on the knowledge that they learned in the workshop before.

Second, CODE program staff should consider We also see a need for offering other

follow up content. This can be future emails with articles, tips, or even campus, community, or

national events that allow people to engage with current materials regarding diversity, equity,

and inclusion. This could allow for a “less committal but more exposure” form of keeping it

relevant in the minds of our respondents.  In applying these recommendations, intensifying the

content could push CODE workshops to be more contributive towards a paradigmatic shift

within our community and providing different forms of follow up content could keep the

motivation and education relevant to one’s consistent learning and reflection.

Third, it is our hope that future assessments can build upon our current project. Our

assessment can serves as a baseline for further assessment that can consider factors which we did

not utilize for our study. Factors such as gender identity, specific department/major, or

generation could offer new, broader, or more in-depth data than we gained from our assessment.

As pre-assessment of CODE participants could serve as a way to compare and contrast post-

assessment data and clarifying aspects of impact and reach. Another possible future assessment

could be tracking requirements for participation and analyzing whether or not those required to

take them have similar outcomes to those who chose to attend. This could determine if and

where there are possible gaps in the training due to the idea that required attendees may not be as

engaged as voluntary ones and therefore showing up in surveys as not impacted. Adding this

may contribute to a conversation of how to engage those expected to show up. This would also

help target different aspects of CODE that may need updating. 

Conclusion
IMPACT OF CODE TRAINING (ADEI) 24

This study intended to examine if there were long lasting benefits from attending the

Academic, Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (ADEI), Conversations on Diversity and Equity

Workshops (CODE) training, and what these longer lasting benefits were. There were areas that

showed promise in helping students, faculty and staff in their progression towards cultural

competence. The data collected show potential gaps in the curriculum that ADEI is

implementing. By comparing white and faculty/staff of color, we suggest that faculty members

of color could have already been proactive in having conversations related to diversity. Another

possibility is that CODE trainings could be inadvertently more tailored to white participants.

To ultimately reach a paradigmatic shift through CODE Trainings, the Academic,

Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Office at Northern Illinois University should make concerted

efforts to both intensify curriculum and utilize the responses of the survey to better impact future

participants. The fact that the institution already requires some individuals to participate in

CODE Trainings provides a great opportunity to serve the interest of the university and student

body. Therefore, it is vital that the material covered in trainings effectively cover topics and

work to encourage students to continue educating themselves. 

IMPACT OF CODE TRAINING (ADEI) 25

References

Agriculture, U.S. Department of, Service, Forest, Chavez, D. J., Winter, P. L., & Absher, J. D. 

(2012). Recreation Visitor Research: Studies of Diversity. CreateSpace Independent

Publishing Platform.

Bezrukova, K., Jehn, K. A., & Spell, C. S. (2012). Reviewing diversity training: Where we have 

been and where we should go. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11(2), 

207-227.

Chavez, D. J., Winter, P. L., & Absher, J. D. (2008). Recreation visitor research: Studies of

diversity. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-210. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Pacific Southwest Research Station.

Cordes, A. (2009). A window and a mirror: Looking out, looking in. A case study of the Saint 

Paul Foundation: Documenting a comprehensive, institution-wide commitment to 

anti-racism. Saint Paul, MN: The Saint Paul Foundation. Retrieved from: 

https://www.facingrace.org/_asset/hf8y3s/facingrace_2009_WindowsMirror_full.pdf

Cutcliffe, J. R., & McKenna, H. P. (1999). Establishing the credibility of qualitative research 

findings: the plot thickens. Journal of Aadvanced nursingNursing, 30(2), 374-380. 

DeAngelis, Tori. (2015). “In sSearch of cCultural cCompetence.” PsycEXTRA DatasetMonitor

on Psychology, 64(3), 64. vol. 64, no. 3, Mar. 2015, p. 64., doi:10.1037/e520422015-

022.

Ferdman, B. M., & Brody, S. E. (1996). Models of dDiversity tTraining. In D. Landis & R. S.

Bhagat (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural training (p. 282–303). Sage Publications, Inc.

Retrieved September 28, 

IMPACT OF CODE TRAINING (ADEI) 26

2020, from

http://www.bernardoferdman.org/Articles/Ferdman_Brody1996_models_of_div_training

pdf

Goodman, Diane. (2014). “Cultural cCompetence for eEquity and iInclusion: A framework for

individual and organizational change..” Understanding and

DismantlingDianeGoodman.com, 2014, 

dianegoodman.com/wpcontent/uploads/2020/05/CulturalCompetenceforEquityandInclusi

onDianeGoodman.pdf. Privilege, 10(1), 5-24.

Illes, M. M. (2017). Beyond eExit sSurveys: A critical examination of current evaluation 

practices for diversity certificate training programs in higher education

(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Minnesota.

doi:https://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/handle/11299/185604/Illes_umn_0130E_1795

0.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Leiderman, S., & George, M. (2005). Looking back: Project Change from 1991-2005. Center

for Assessment and Policy Development. Retrieved online from:

http://www.capd.org/pubfiles/pub-2005-04-01.pdf.

Ngo, B., Myers, S., Chang, Y., Orville, R., & Illes, M. (2012) The Higher Education 

Anti-Racism (H.E.A.R.T.) Team collaboration report

Thurmond, V. A. (2001). The point of triangulation. Journal of nursing Nursing

scholarshipScholarship, 33(3), 

253-258. 

Triangulation, D. S. Carter, N., Bryant-Lukosius, D., DiCenso, A., Blythe, J., & Neville, A. J.

(2014, September). The use of triangulation in qualitative research. In 

IMPACT OF CODE TRAINING (ADEI) 27

Oncology nNursing Fforum, 41(5), 545-547. (Vol. 41, No. 5, p. 545). 

 Pope, R. L. (1995). Multicultural Organizational Development: Implications and Applications

for Student Affairs. In (pp. 233 - 249).

Pope, R.L., Reynolds, A.L., & Mueller, J.A. (2019). "A cChange iIs gGonna cCome": 

Paradigm sShifts to dDismantle oOppressive sStructures. Journal of College Student

Development, 60(6), 659-673. doi:10.1353/csd.2019.0061.

IMPACT OF CODE TRAINING (ADEI) 28

Table 1

  Student Learning Themes

Themes  Sub-Themes 
Active Listening and 1. Understand an individual’s Point of View 
Communication Skills 2. Correcting problematic behaviors through conversation 
3. Understanding issues from two perspectives 
4. Controlled attitude to communicate effectively 
5. Confidence to have difficult conversation 
Honoring Different 1. Gained insight of peers’ views through group sharing activity 
Perspectives and 2. Heard real life occurrences of racism through traumatic
Experiences  experiences of peers 
3. Racism impacts the life experiences people from diverse
groups 
4. Experiences impact people differently 
5. Understanding how your privilege benefits you 
Knowledge About Race 1. Respecting cultural and racial differences 
and of Cultural Identities  2. History and Social Construction of Race 
3. Different Identities 
Recognizing bias 1. Be aware of Potential biases 
2. Recognition of bias in the real world (NIU, the media, etc.) 
3. Recognition biases learned during upbringing 
Understanding 1. Systematic Racism is an issue in our country that needs to be
Systematic Racism  fought 
2. There’s a need for allies in the fight against systematic racism 
3. Systematic racism is detrimental to the wellbeing of people of
color 
4. Racism is prevalent in our society 
Using Own Voice to 1. Don’t let racial political climate prevent you from making a
Combat Inequities  difference 
2. Stand up for your beliefs and against the mistreatment of
others 

 
IMPACT OF CODE TRAINING (ADEI) 29

Table 2

Themes for Self-Development in Diversity Topics

Themes  Sub-Themes 
1. Continuing Self- 1. Analyzing action and how they impact others 
Reflection  2. Reviewing past conversation and how those conversation can
affect an individual’s perception 
3.  Reflecting on different variables before coming to a
conclusion 
4. Thinking about how to make a positive impact in regards to
inequalities 
2. Engaging in Self- 1. Reading and consuming information from sources with
Education  diverse opinions and looking for the biases  
2. Seeking information about a wide range of diversity, equity
and inclusion topics to help positively impact the experiences of
POC 
3. Having conversations with people from a different
background and listening to the experiences that have impacted
them 
4. Participating in additional trainings to become more
informed 
5. Attending ADEI conferences 
3. Personal Change  1. Donating to causes that work to improve the lives of
minorities 
2. Attend protest to improve the conditions and experiences of
minority populations   
3. Educating family on the systemic issues people in our
country face 

 
IMPACT OF CODE TRAINING (ADEI) 30

Appendix A

Code Impact Survey

Hello! Thank you for your willingness to assist us in our research! We are graduate
students in a higher education program at Northern Illinois University. We have partnered with
ADEI in order to assess their CODE workshops. 
You are invited to participate in our survey on CODE workshops. As a past participant of
CODE workshops, you have important perspectives of the effectiveness of such trainings. The
information gathered from this survey will allow us to gather data on your experiences and
understandings from CODE workshops through ADEI and provide foundation for further
research.
The survey should take about 5-10 minutes to complete. It will ask questions that will
help us evaluate the long-term impact of the CODE training you attended at NIU. 
Before you proceed, please note that you must be over 18 years old to participate, and
that the data gathered from this survey will be used for assessment research purposes only. No
identification information of your identity will be asked for, looked up, revealed, or used. By
continuing the survey, you acknowledge that you're 18 years old and consent to our use of the
data entered. 
By completing the survey, you are eligible to be entered in a raffle to receive one of five
$10 Starbucks gift cards. If you are interested in entering this raffle, you will be taken to the
entry form at the end of the survey. This entry form will ask you to share your ZID or AID email.
Thank you again for participating in this survey! If you have any questions please feel
free to contact our supervising professor for the HESA573: Applied Assessment in Higher
Education and Student Affairs course, Jacqueline Mac, Ph.D (jmac@niu.edu).
 
For the following questions, answer with: 1 – Much Less Aware/Much Worse, 2 -Somewhat
Less Aware/Somewhat Worse, 3 – About the Same, 4 – Somewhat More Aware/Somewhat
Better, 5 – Much More Aware/Much Better

Q1. “Compared to before you participated in CODE workshops, how aware are you now of the
following?”:
1. 1.    Your Social Identities
2. 2.    How your identities intersect
IMPACT OF CODE TRAINING (ADEI) 31

3.
3.    Prejudices, stereotypes, and biases you have held
4.
4.    How you are perceived by others
5.
5.    The impact of your behavior
6.
6.    Others’ social identities
7.
7.    Differences between how others do and think compared to your own
 
Q2. “Compared to before you participated in CODE workshops, how would you rate your
knowledge of the following?”:
1. 8.    The history of systemic inequalities
2. 9.    The systems of belief that informed systemic inequalities
3. 10.  The existence of systems of oppression

Q3. “Compared to before you participated in CODE workshops, how would you rate your
knowledge of how different forms of oppression operate on the levels below?”:
1. 11.  At the interpersonal level (e.g., between individuals or groups of people)
2. 12.  At the cultural level (e.g., how oppression shows up in the unwritten rules?)
3. 13.  At the institutional level (e.g., how oppression shows up in policies and
processes
4.
5. 14.  At the structural level (e.g., how oppression informs laws, schooling,
housing)                                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                           
                                                           
6.

Q4. “Compared to before you participated in CODE workshops, How would you rate your
ability to do the following?”:
1. 15.  Start a dialogue with peers about social identities, diversity, and oppression
2. 16.  Engage conflict about identities, diversity, and oppression
3. 17.  Respond to biased comments
4. 18.  Notice inequitable dynamics showing up in groups I am a part of
5. 19.  Address inequitable dynamics showing up in groups I am a part of

Q5. “Compared to before you participated in CODE workshops, how would you rate your ability
to do the following?”:
1. 20.  Continue reflecting on how diversity, equity, and inclusion issues impact me
2. 21.  Learning about how best to address issues related to equity and inclusion
3. 22.  Embrace cultural differences
4. 23.  Integrate cultural differences in my day to day life
5. 24.  Adapt to different cultural styles
6. 25.  Create a welcoming environment for people different than me

Q6. Describe an action you've taken for your continued self-development towards diversity,
equity, and inclusion (e.g., self-education, self-reflection, personal change etc.)
________________________________________________________________
IMPACT OF CODE TRAINING (ADEI) 32

Q7. Describe, if any, something you learned at a CODE workshop that still sticks with you
today.
________________________________________________________________

Q8. Are you a Student or Faculty/Staff?

a.    Student
b.    Faculty/Staff 

Q9. What Department do you belong to? (If responded with Faculty/Staff for Q10)
________________________________________________________________

Q10. Please Select your year (If responded with Student for Q10)
a.     Freshmen
b.     Sophomore
c.     Junior
d.     Senior
e.     Graduate Student

Q11. Which do you identify with? (Select all that apply)

a.    Whitewhite
b.    Black or African American 
c.     Latinx
d.    Asian
e.    Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander
f.      American Indian or Alaska Native
g.    Other
h.    Prefer not to respond  
 
Q12 Are you of Hispanic descent?
f.      Yes
g.     No
h.     Prefer not to respond
 

 
IMPACT OF CODE TRAINING (ADEI) 33

Appendix B

  Student Learning Themes

Themes  Sub-Themes 
Active Listening and  Understand an individual’s Point of View 
Communication Skills  Correcting problematic behaviors through conversation 
 Understanding issues from two perspectives 
 Controlled attitude to communicate effectively 
 Confidence to have difficult conversation 
Honoring Different  Gained insight of peers’ views through group sharing activity 
Perspectives and  Heard real life occurrences of racism through traumatic
Experiences  experiences of peers 
 Racism impacts the life experiences people from diverse groups 
 Experiences impact people differently 
 Understanding how your privilege benefits you 
Knowledge About Race  Respecting cultural and racial differences 
and of Cultural Identities   History and Social Construction of Race 
 Different Identities 
Recognizing bias  Be aware of Potential biases 
 Recognition of bias in the real world (NIU, the media, etc.) 
 Recognition biases learned during upbringing 
Understanding  Systematic Racism is an issue in our country that needs to be
Systematic Racism  fought 
 There’s a need for allies in the fight against systematic racism 
 Systematic racism is detrimental to the wellbeing of people of
color 
 Racism is prevalent in our society 
Using Own Voice to  Don’t let racial political climate prevent you from making a
Combat Inequities  difference 
 Stand up for your beliefs and against the mistreatment of others 

 
IMPACT OF CODE TRAINING (ADEI) 34

Appendix C

Students Themes for Self-Development in Diversity Topics

Themes  Sub-Themes 
Continuing Self-Reflection   Analyzing action and how they impact others 
 Reviewing past conversation and how those conversation can
affect an individual’s perception 
  Reflecting on different variables before coming to a conclusion 
 Thinking about how to make a positive impact in regards to
inequalities 
Engaging in Self-  Reading and consuming information from sources with diverse
Education  opinions and looking for the biases  
 Seeking information about a wide range of diversity, equity and
inclusion topics to help positively impact the experiences of
POC 
 Having conversations with people from a different
background and listening to the experiences that have impacted
them 
 Participating in additional trainings to become more informed 
 Attending ADEI conferences 
Personal Change   Donating to causes that work to improve the lives of minorities 
 Attend protest to improve the conditions and experiences of
minority populations   
 Educating family on the systemic issues people in our country
face 
IMPACT OF CODE TRAINING (ADEI) 35

Appendix D

  Faculty & Staff Learning Themes

Themes  Sub-Themes 
Active Listening and  Correcting problematic behaviors through conversation 
Communication Skills  Controlled attitude to communicate effectively 
Honoring Different  Heard real life occurrences of racism through traumatic
Perspectives and experiences of colleagues at NIU
Experiences 
Knowledge About Race  Knowing/understanding one’s own identities
and of Cultural Identities   History and Social Construction of Race 
Recognizing bias  Recognition of bias in the real world (NIU, the media, etc.) 
 Recognition of biases learned during upbringing 
Understanding  Systematic Racism is an issue in our country that needs to be
Systematic Racism  fought
 Systematic racism is detrimental to the wellbeing of people of
color 
 There’s a need for allies in the fight against systematic racism
Using Own Voice to  Do not let racial political climate prevent you from making a
Combat Inequities  difference 
 A call to action
IMPACT OF CODE TRAINING (ADEI) 36

Appendix E

Faculty & Staff Themes for Self-Development in Diversity Topics

Themes  Sub-Themes 
Continuing Self-Reflection   Analyzing action and how they impact others 
 Thinking about how to make a positive impact in regards to
inequalities 
Engaging in Self-  Reading and consuming information from sources with diverse
Education  opinions and looking for the biases  
 Practicing having non-invasive conversations with people from
differing backgrounds and listening to the experiences that have
impacted them 
 Participating in additional trainings to become more informed 
 Attending ADEI conferences 
Personal Change   Utilizing this information in my own development, research, and
work